Renewable Energy 57 (2013) 539e545

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Renewable vs. traditional energy management solutions e A Finnish hospital

facility case
Mikko Kantola*, Arto Saari
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Aalto University, Rakentajanaukio 3, 02150 Espoo, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This article discusses the current price situation in the Finnish energy market. The aim of the study was
Received 5 October 2012 to calculate the life-cycle costs (LCC) of 12 energy management systems and compare the prices. Sur-
Accepted 21 February 2013 prisingly, the most polluting and commonly used solution, combination of district heating and grid
Available online 19 March 2013
electricity, was also the most expensive solution. The main reason for this is the increase in energy prices
in Finland in the twenty-first century. According to the calculations, when considering a facility the size
Keywords:
of the Espoo Hospital, the most affordable solutions were biogas energy, wood chip heating and ground
Energy management
source heating. The differences were relatively small between all solutions other than biogas. Biogas
Life-cycle cost
Renewable energy
energy is by far the most affordable solution. However, it is only suitable for large-scale projects and
Economical comparison some uncertainty risk has to be added because the system is not yet commonly used. Regarding the other
unorthodox systems, solar electricity was the most expensive method; similar to the situation with snow
storage cooling, which needs to entail certain societal benefits for it to be cost-effective. A sensitivity
analysis was also conducted using four variations; however, significant differences to the original cal-
culations were not discovered.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Finland is committed to the EU emission reduction goals and is
aiming to reduce CO2 emissions by 60% by the year 2050 compared
to the level in 1990 [1,2]. On the other hand, the electricity, heat and
cooling energy consumed by buildings produce 46% of all CO2
emissions in Finland [3]. Finland’s northern latitude is of course
part of the reason that percentage is so high. The EU regulation
states that all new buildings to be nearly zero-energy buildings
(nZEB) by the end of the year 2020 [4]. For public buildings, the date
is 2018. The buildings owned by cities and municipalities will play a
key role in this big transition process. Even though the floor area of
public buildings is only 10% that of all buildings in Finland [5,6],
building them as nZEB will make a big difference. By doing so,
authorities can set a good example for the people of the city and
other cities as well. The decree by the European Commission also
focuses strongly on the example that the public sector can set in
this respect [7].
Renewable sources of energy are one part of the solution for
achieving the EU demands on limiting the emissions of heating,
electricity and cooling. Renewable sources of energy are diverse
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ358 407684173.
E-mail address: mikko.kantola@aalto.fi (M. Kantola).
and there are certain boundary conditions related to them. For
example, the problems with solar power are related to storage and
the darkness of winter. The unpopularity of renewable energy
sources has always been related to some extent to their high price.
The two core forms of energy in Finland are district heating and
grid electricity from mixed sources that make use of renewable and
non-renewable technologies. In recent years, these two forms of
energy have become more expensive in relation to inflation, so
their prices have escalated [8]. At the same time, the prices of most
renewable energy sources have decreased due to technological
advances in the field. The market for renewable technologies is also
expanding rapidly, and more money is being put into the research
and development of those technologies [9e11]. These trends have
the potential to change the price setting of energy market. The aim
of this article was to discover the current price situation in the
Finnish energy market.
The article was written as part of the KURKE research project
funded by Tekes (the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and
Innovation). A new hospital in Espoo, near Helsinki, served as a case
study for the KURKE project. The expected annual electricity, the
heating and cooling energy consumption, and the amount of power
required by the system were calculated by another researcher in
the KURKE project and utilised as a starting value for the price
calculations. The large size of the hospital made it possible to study
a diverse range of solutions, and closely to the subject of renewable

0960-1481/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.02.023
540 M. Kantola, A. Saari / Renewable Energy 57 (2013) 539e545
energy linked decentralised energy production (DEP), was also
tackled.
The first step in making the calculations was to ask companies
about their investment and material costs. The majority of the
prices were acquired from market leader companies in Finland. We
also made use of some public price lists. For example, electricity
prices are public and the price used in the study was the average
price in Finland at the time of the calculations. One thing to
remember is that the prices are only indicative; energy prices can
vary quite a bit between areas and over short periods of time.
2. Cost and emission data sources
Few of the costs like the cost of district heating is easy to obtain
from the available statistics. Some solutions however, are more
complex. There are material costs per energy unit, workloads,
spaces for the equipment, and so forth, to consider. For example, in
the case of wood chip heating, estimates had to be made for the
workload needed for heating and how much a salary heating
entrepreneur would charge per hour. We estimated that a basic
hour of heating work, including the entrepreneurial risk, would
cost 30 euros and that the workload for 1 MWh of heat would be
0.15 h for wood chips and 0.04 h for wood pellets. These assump-
tions are vital for finishing the calculations however, every com-
pany sets its own prices, and, when it comes to salaries, there might
be significant cost variations in real life. Before making calculations,
we also need to take into account such variables as the lifetime of
different energy management equipment, the interest level in
alternative forms of energy and the escalation of energy prices.
We collected the length of lifetime of different energy man-
agement equipment from the existing literature; they varied be-
tween 20 and 30 years, with solar electricity panels and biogas
stations having a 30-year lifetime [12e15]. We estimated the in-
terest level based on the average level recommended by the State of
Finland for the years 1995e2010. When the effect of inflation was
considered, this number was 2.75% [16]. Considering how much
doubt there is regarding the level of interest, the escalation of en-
ergy prices is even more difficult to predict. However, the Technical
Research Centre of Finland has used an estimate of 1.5% in their
calculations [17], and this figure was used in the present study as
well. The accuracy of the results is based on the energy
management-related cost data. No publicly available data exists for
all the systems, but the potential system providers calculated an
offer separately for each case. For this reason, most of the cost data
was gathered by phone directly from companies. The aim was to
contact experienced persons in leading companies. The costs of the
parts of the energy management systems are stated below in
Table 1 and the system data is presented in Table 2.
The data sources are reliable, but there is always a margin of
error present. Prices in the energy business are rapidly changing, so
Table 1
Price components of the 12 energy management systems compared in the article.
Energy management system Raw material/energy cost
Biogas [18,19] 0 EUR
Electricity [8] 102 V/MWh
Ground heating [20] 34 V/MWh
Ground cooling [20] 34 V/MWh
Wood chip [21] 20 V/MWh
Sun electricity [23] e EUR
Compressor cooling [24] 102 V/MWh
Snow storage cooling [15] 8.6 V/MWh
Wood pellet [21] 36 V/MWh
District cooling [25] 66.7 V/MWh
District heating [26] 55.2 V/MWh
the results of this study are only indicative in nature and valid in
Finland for a certain period of time. The reason that we did not
gather a more extensive database to support the results has simply
to do with the limited size of the Finnish energy markets. There are
only a few large or mid-sized companies in Finland working with
renewable energy management systems, and we chose not to
gather price data from small companies because it would have
increased the average cost estimates and the results would have
been distorted. Smaller companies are used to delivering small-
scale equipment, and therefore, the price per unit is higher. As a
limit for the enquiries, a chance to carry out the energy manage-
ment project of Espoo Hospital in real life was chosen.
The emission data used in the article was gathered from various
sources. The figures for district heating and grid electricity repre-
sent a nine-year average for the first part of the twenty-first century
in Finland and were calculated by another member of the KURKE
team. For district cooling, the data comes from the largest cooling
power producer in Finland, Helsingin Energia [25] and for district
heating it comes from Fortum [26]. When it comes to district
cooling it is important to remember that 80 per cent of energy used
as district cooling energy would be wasted if not used for this
purpose [27]. A cooling compressor and ground source heating
system works on the same principle and with the same coefficient
of performance (COP) of three, so the emissions produced using
such systems are one-third the emissions that would be generated
by using electricity heating. Snow storage has COP of 11.8, so the
cooling emissions would decrease if we can assume that the driving
range of snow trucks remains the same [15]. The production of solar
panels produces a certain amount of CO2, so solar electricity is not
totally emission free [28]. Finnish legislation treats wood-based
material as emission free, so this study only takes into account a
small quantity of emissions resulting from the transport of the
material straining this particular solution [29,30]. Biogas also re-
ceives a rating of zero in the field of emissions [29]. In reality, using
biogas can be even greener because it is 60e70 per cent methane,
which is 21 times worse a greenhouse gas than CO2 [31,32].
3. Research methods
The Finnish government annually publishes recommended
levels of interest that should be used for investment calculations
[17]. After the initial decision for the level of interest and technical
issues such as lifetime, it was possible to calculate the cost of the
system during the course of its lifespan. The method commonly
used for calculating the investment costs during the lifespan of a
system, or the life-cycle cost (LCC) for an investment, is the net
present value (NPV). The NPV of an investment is calculated so that
all the costs that it is predicted to produce during different stages of
its lifespan are discounted to the time of the initial investment. By
comparing the results of the calculations for all the alternative
Investment cost (return value) Work costs Other annual costs
8.7M 60,000 V/a EUR 6000
e e e
EUR 1.64M (0.67M) e EUR 2000
EUR 0.25M e e
EUR 0.8M 4.5 V/MWh e
1.6M e e
EUR 288,000 e EUR 2000
EUR 1.6M (0.48M) 30,000 V/a EUR 23,000
EUR 0.8M 0.8 V/MWh e
EUR 0.44M e e
EUR 95,000 e EUR 31,700
 M. Kantola, A. Saari / Renewable Energy 57 (2013) 539e545 541

Table 2
On-site machinery of the 12 energy management systems compared in the article.

Energy management system Machinery Quantity Producer

Biogas 1.8e3.0 MW Jernbacher Type 6 2 Zorg Biogas [18]
0.5e1.1 MW Jernbacher Type 3 2 Zorg Biogas [18]
Biogas plant with 32,000 m3 production 1
Carrier 3RD 762 chiller 4 Carrier [24]
Electricityewood chip 1 MW heating plant 2 Agrimarket [22]
Carrier 3RD 762 chiller 4 Carrier [24]
Electricityeground heating and cooling Ground source heat pump 2 AirIx [20]
Electricityesnowewood chip 1 MW heating plant 2 Agrimarket [22]
Snow storage with heat pump 1
Electricityesunewood chip 1 MW heating plant 2 Agrimarket [22]
1.5 m2 PV-panel 2000 Naps Systems [23]
Electricityesnoweground heating Ground source heat pump 2 AirIx [20]
Snow storage with heat pump 1
Electricityewood pellet 1 MW heating plant 2 Agrimarket [22]
Carrier 3RD 762 chiller 4 Carrier [24]
Electricityedistrict heating Carrier 3RD 762 chiller 4 Carrier [24]
Electricityesuneground heating Ground source heat pump 2 AirIx [20]
1.5 m2 PV-panel 2000 Naps Systems [23]
Electricityesnowedistrict heating Snow storage with heat pump 1
Electricityesunedistrict heating 1.5 m2 PV-panel 2000 Naps Systems [23]
Electricityedistrict heating and cooling

solutions, we were able to find out which solution is the least
expensive in the long run [33] (Fig. 1).
4. Results
The energy management system for the demonstration case
Espoo Hospital can be handled using a large range of solutions. This
study focuses on the most commonly used solutions. In addition,
we put a few unorthodox solutions, like snow storage cooling, to
the test. Snow storage cooling is used on a large scale in only one
place in the world: Sundsvall Hospital in Sweden [15]. Biogas en-
ergy from municipal organic waste is also quite unknown in
Finland. We also chose to assess and compare solar electricity,
ground source heating and wood heating. For the time being, these
renewable energy sources enjoy only a mediocre level of popu-
larity. We wanted to compare them with the most popular energy
management system in Finland: grid electricity and district heat-
ing. Snow storage cooling was compared with compressor cooling.
The results (Table 1) were unexpected in the sense that the
market leader combination of district heating and grid electricity
was not the most economical alternative. The differences between
the alternatives were reasonably small, except for that of the
cheapest option, biogas energy. However, the margin of error in-
creases to some extent in the case of biogas for two reasons: first,

Fig. 1. Excel-tool for LCC calculations.

542 M. Kantola, A. Saari / Renewable Energy 57 (2013) 539e545
we had assumed that the raw material, which is organic municipal
waste, would be received at the station free of charge, and second,
we could only find the price of the biogas plant from the pricelist of
one international company [19]. However, we felt that, since the
price that the company charges for gas motors is in line with the
prices set by the market leader for gas motors in Europe, GE, the
price of the biogas plant was probably reliable as well [34]. At
present, people are paying to get rid of municipal waste and organic
waste is being recycled in many urban households. This implies
that the price of the waste should be near zero.
The most economical solutions in the comparison were wood
chip heating and ground source heating, along with biogas. District
heating and cooling were not competitive for a facility the size of
Espoo Hospital. It is necessary to add that, when talking about
district heating, the prices and the production methods vary
greatly. The amount of emissions released into the atmosphere
naturally varies as much as the production method. In some re-
gions, district heating is still competitive in price, but the trend in
recent years has been clear: the price of district heating is
increasing. This gives energy production methods that rely on large
investment a distinct advantage.
On the cooling side, traditional compressor cooling systems are
more affordable than snow storage and solar electricity system.
Snow storage cooling is almost 80% more expensive than
compressor cooling, whereas solar electricity is approximately 50%
more expensive than compressor cooling. However, when consid-
ering the benefits of snow storage, it is also important to look at the
effect the system has on handling snow in the city centres. For
example, Helsinki has a snow melting unit that costs 1000 V/h to
operate [35]. Reducing the distance that the snow has to be carried
away from the city centre will result in significant cost savings and
will in turn reduce the emissions caused by handling the snow.
Given Finland’s northern latitude, a snow storage cooling system
seems at this point to be a more attractive solution than solar
panels. In central Europe, the situation is the opposite. The space
requirements for these two solutions are almost identical.
A recent study done in cooperation with Finnish and Estonian
researchers presented findings quite similar to the ones in this
study [36]. Their study compared residential buildings with varying
levels of energy efficiency and with different energy management
systems: ground source heating, natural gas, wood pellets, elec-
tricity and oil. Only three of the systems are in both studies, but the
order of those is identical. Based on the calculations, a ground
source heat pump was the clear winner. Although natural gas is the
same price, it uses more primary energy. Even though wood pellets
use the same amount of primary energy as ground heating, they are
more expensive. Electricity and oil were the worst choices. How-
ever, another recently published study [37] declared an air source
heat pump the winner and found that ground source heating was
economically viable only in standard buildings and not in buildings
with an nZEB level of efficiency. However, the prices for the study
were gathered two years prior to this study and it did not take into
account escalating energy prices. Both factors, the earlier date of
the study and the current increases in energy prices, shore up the
results of this study. The investment cost of ground source heating
is also lighter in comparison to Finland in Estonia due to smaller
construction labour costs in general. Major part of ground source
heating investment comes from drilling costs.
A cost calculation was conducted a few years ago to compare
bioenergy to oil heating. The results confirm that wood chips are
more affordable than wood pellets. According to that particular
study, peat is the only energy source that is more affordable than
wood chips [38]. A few other studies have also assessed the
different energy efficiency methods in the last few years and found
that renewable energy sources can compete at least evenly with
non-renewable energy sources at the moment; they also argue that
solar electricity will be competitive in the future [39e42].
A sensitivity analysis (Table 2) was conducted to the alterna-
tives. Variations on four different aspects were tested in the anal-
ysis. Those aspects were: interest and escalation, investment
discount, adding plot value and the fourth column, where the most
uncertain reference data were worsen. In terms of the first varia-
tion, the interest rate used was lowered by 50% and the escalation
was lowered to zero. This favours grid electricity and district
heating, which have a low investment cost and high energy con-
sumption. The second variation, investment discount, was based on
the fact that many prices given by the companies to random cus-
tomers are higher than they are for cities; companies reduce the
price for cities because city authorities order energy in such high
quantities. The result of the second variation was the opposite of
the first one. With the second variation, the advantage went to
investment-orientated renewable energy production methods.
Sometimes, the buildings are in an area where the plot value is
significant. The third variation took this into consideration. It
focused on buildings standing on plots that are valued at EUR
250,000 per hectare. The last variation, uncertain reference data,
took into consideration the possible mistakes made when calcu-
lating value of work, upkeep and maintenance costs, and also the
lifetime of biogas stations. We reduced the lifetime of biogas sta-
tions from 30 to 20 years and raised the value of work, upkeep and
maintenance costs by 30% for all the other alternatives; however
the price wood chip cover of snow storage cooling was not raised.
Table 2 shows all the sensitivity variations; we summed up the
original calculations and divided them by five to reveal which op-
tion has the lowest average cost. The lowest and the highest price
are highlighted for each variation.
As one can see, there are only small differences between the
variations and the overall order of the alternatives remained almost
identical to that suggested by the original calculation. Though high
interest levels and worsening uncertain values reduce the gaps
between the alternatives, renewable energy choices still retain the
advantage at this point. There are of course several points to
consider other than money when choosing an energy management
system for buildings, but these calculations suggest that money is
no longer the main issue, even though it might have been in many
cases in recent history.
Costs are important when discussing energy management.
However, emissions should never be left out of the equation. In this
study, we calculated the amount of CO2 emissions for all solutions.
The results of these calculations (see Table 3) are based on data of
average emissions in Finland; however, in the case of district
heating, the real situation varies from one city to another. There are
areas where district heating is cheaper and produces fewer emis-
sions than is suggested in this study. However, there are also places
where it is more expensive and produces more emissions. The
average data yield good results on a general level and demonstrate
the extent to which the different alternatives vary in relation to one
another. All the indirect emissions are included in the calculations,
such as emissions caused by the transport of raw materials and the
production of energy management equipment.
With the comparison of the emissions, renewable energy
sources e biogas energy, wood heating, solar energy and snow
storage cooling e yielded the best results. Wood energy produces a
large amount of CO2 emissions. There is a concept however based
on the idea, that the new forest replacing the old one will absorb
the CO2 emissions; hence, an emission factor of zero has been
granted to this energy source. Therefore, wood chips compare
favourably with biogas, snow storage cooling and solar energy. The
low emissions resulting from snow storage cooling are based on the
exceptionally high COP value of the system. Snow provides the
 M. Kantola, A. Saari / Renewable Energy 57 (2013) 539e545 543

Table 3 up, the cost per unit for research and development (R&D) goes
LCC calculation results for 12 energy management systems and ratio for easy down and a positive cycle is achieved because the technological
comparison in Espoo Hospital case.
advantages also feed demand by lowering prices. Renewable en-
Energy management system Life cycle cost Ratio ergy products, such as solar panels, include numerous R&D costs, so
proportioned to
a product must achieve this positive cycle before it can become
20 years lifetime
(kV)
popular.
During the past decade, the price of electricity has increased at a
Biogas 7989 1.00
Electricityewood chip 9565 1.20 much greater pace than the rate of inflation would suggest. The
Electricityesunewood chip 10,102 1.26 increase has been 80% for the energy management systems studied
Electricityesnowewood chip 10,375 1.30 here [43]. The price of district heating has increased more quickly
Electricityeground heating and cooling 10,398 1.30 between the years 2000 and 2010 than the customer price index
Electricityewood pellet 10,447 1.30
Electricityedistrict heating 10,886 1.36
suggests: the price index shows that it increased by 55% [20]. In the
Electricityesnoweground heating 11,365 1.42 case of district heating, part of the price increase corrects the prior
Electricityesunedistrict heating 11,424 1.43 price drop; therefore, the escalation in price is not entirely reflected
Electricityedistrict heating and cooling 11,444 1.43 in the current cost of this particular energy source. In the mean-
Electricityesuneground heating 11,599 1.45
time, the customer price index has increased by approximately 20%
Electricityesnowedistrict heating 11,697 1.46
[20]. The increase in the price of basic energy during the last decade
has given a big boost to the appeal of renewable energy sources.
energy, and electricity is only needed to run the pumps (Tables 4 District heating can no longer advertise its relative affordability;
and 5). instead, those promoting it have to focus on new things, such issues
as ease of use.
5. Discussion On the basis of the results of the price comparisons, we
recommend wood chip heating, biogas energy and ground source
There is a big change taking place in building energy manage- heating in lieu of traditional district heating and grid electricity,
ment concerning the competitive situation of different energy even when taking into account the uncertainty factors surrounding
sources. The three main factors driving this change are the esca- them. On average, they are better solutions in terms of both price
lation of energy prices, efforts at preventing climate change and and stopping the climate change. However, there are large regional
technological innovation. In seeking to tackle the problem of differences in the price of district heating and grid electricity, and
climate change, the European Union has made some significant the production methods vary as well. Ground source heat pumps
decisions concerning the energy efficiency of buildings. The nearly rely upon high COP values; if COP values increase in the future, due
zero-energy demand for all new buildings will most probably result to technological progress, ground source heat pumps will become
in a sharp increase in renewable energy production in the up- more attractive. The price of wood chips and pellets will be stable in
coming decades. The efforts made to improve existing technologies the long term because wood is a renewable resource found in na-
for small-scale energy production and products will increase ture and because there is always a constant supply of it on the
considerably, though the markets for these products will suppos- Finnish market. In addition, in wood chip heating, as with other
edly expand tremendously along with the new regulations in 2020. energy management systems that rely upon renewable sources,
Energy management technology has taken huge steps forward investment costs are a significant part of the costs, which means
during the last two decades. Ground heat source pumps have that changes in the cost of raw-material will have less of an effect
become popular, wood is suddenly an attractive material for on prices.
heating and the price of solar energy is on the verge of becoming Solar electricity does not rank as highly as the other energy
more cost effective in Finland as well. The on-going debate about management solutions. Even with modern technology, it is more
matters concerning global warming has increased the demand for expensive. But it can be used during the summer season, when its
renewable energy sources. When the demand for a product goes cooling potential can be fully exploited. There is also less of a need

Table 4
Sensitivity analysis of 12 energy management systems, with four variations, average of all variations and range of costs, in Espoo Hospital case.

Energy management system Interest increase Investment cost Price of the plot Uncertainty increases Average of all Range of
of 50% and decrease of 250,000 V per of 30% and 10 years off variations (kV) costs (kV)
escalation to 30% (kV) hectare included biogas plants lifetime (kV)
zero (kV) (kV)
Biogas 7940 5687 8041 9753 7882 5687e9753
Electricityewood chip 7117 9238 9643 9574 9027 7117e9643
Electricityesunewood chip 7983 9390 10,474 10,144 9619 7983e10,474
Electricityeground heating 7820 9821 10,598 10,402 9660 7820e10,598
and cooling
Electricityesnowewood chip 7927 9712 10,747 10,913 9825 7927e10,913
Electricityewood pellet 7729 10,120 10,499 10,464 9852 7729e10,499
Electricityedistrict heating 8245 10,874 10,887 10,896 10,358 8245e10,896
Electricityesnoweground 8779 10,447 11,711 11,813 10,688 8779e11,813
heating
Electricityedistrict heating 8629 11,432 11,444 11,444 10,745 8629e11,444
and cooling
Electricityesuneground 9713 9977 11,942 11,608 10,810 9713e11,942
heating
Electricityesunedistrict 9049 11,326 11,622 11,424 10,969 9049e11,622
heating
Electricityesnowedistrict 9024 11,383 11,907 12,147 11,115 9024e12,147
heating
544 M. Kantola, A. Saari / Renewable Energy 57 (2013) 539e545
Table 5
Emissions of energy production methods used in Espoo Hospital case.
Energy management system CO2 emissions
(kg/MWh)
Grid electricity 269
District heating 216
District cooling 120
Ground source heating and cooling 90
Solar energya 20
Wood energya 10
Snow storage cooling 40
Cooling compressor 90
Biogas planta 0
Gas motora 0
a
Production without emissions.
for cooling energy when the sun is not shining and the electricity
production is at its lowest. In addition, users may find solar panels
attractive and view them as a status symbol, and they provide
certain structural benefits as well [44]. At this time, it is not possible
to use solar electricity to produce all of the electricity needed for
lighting, cooling and appliances because it is too expensive and the
battery losses makes it ineffective to store the electricity.
Based on the calculations, the biogas option seems especially
promising. However, one thing to remember is that it can be used
only on a reasonably large scale. There are micro-scale CHP tech-
nologies available on the market [45], but the calculations made for
this paper do not apply to those particular technologies. On the
other hand, wood chip heating works in the same way on a small
scale and the price data reported for wood-based energy systems
are accurate. The only uncertainty factor regarding the wood-based
options has to do with the price of the labour. Pellets are consid-
erably more expensive than wood chips and the lost money cannot
be retrieved by reducing the labour workload. Especially on a large
scale, wood chips are the cheaper option. In a detached house with
its own heating system and an owner who does the heating work,
pellets can be a more appealing choice because they take less
storage space and are easier to handle.
When choosing an energy management solution, it is certainly
important to consider price, but emissions should also be consid-
ered. Emissions should somehow be valued during the selection
process of the energy management system so that it is possible to
refer to concrete numbers when comparing and choosing between
different alternatives. The weight given to low emissions and the
price of the system vary with common standard lacking and it is
ultimately up to decision makers to reduce the amount of emissions
put into the atmosphere. Factors other than cost and emissions will
also affect the choice. Nonetheless, these two factors are universal,
whereas other factors will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
For example, wood heating may be prohibited in the centre of a city
or there may not be enough space for snow storage or solar panels.
The emission rates from wood heating, solar energy and biogas
energy are the lowest: they are practically zero. The emission rates
are also low for snow storage cooling, district cooling and ground
source heating and cooling. Grid electricity and district heating
have the worst emission rates. When comparing emission rates and
the overall price of a particular energy heating solution, the results
were surprising: more expensive systems have higher emission
rates, whereas less expensive systems have lower emission rates.
Based on these results, we recommend using a renewable heating
source in an ideal situation.
6. Conclusions
Some encouraging results were accomplished with this study in
the field of renewable energy management. Price has always been
the main problem when it comes to renewable energy sources, but
it seems to only be an obstacle at this particular moment for solar
electricity. The results should encourage state and local decision-
makers to shift their priorities to renewable resources for new
public buildings. The Finnish government has declared that in the
future, the focus will shift increasingly to renewable energy sour-
ces. Concrete methods will include investment grants, imminent
feed-in tariff systems and certificates [46]. Jyri Häkämies the min-
ister of economic affairs of Finland also gave his support on making
Finland the coal free country by the year 2025 [47].
With the energy management solutions for buildings being
significantly re-evaluated at the moment, there will be the oppor-
tunity to change the energy management systems of older public
buildings as well. For instance, distributed energy production,
which will be a part of new public buildings after 2018, can easily be
adapted, with some limitations in terms of location, to fit older
buildings using district heating and grid electricity connections. A
distributed energy system can be economically viable; it is reliable
and flexible and, most importantly, it is environmentally sustain-
able [48]. The largest impediment to the widespread use of
distributed renewable energy at the moment is the attitude and
knowledge of the decision-makers. For example, small-scale CHP
technologies exist, and, after the technological challenges have
been overcome, the political challenge to such technologies can be
solved by providing information to the right people at the right
time [43]. A complete change in the type of energy systems used by
public buildings would be the type of radical move that would give
Finland positive publicity, and it would most probably reassure
citizens building a house to go for the renewable solution.
The results suggest that further studies should be done on the
possibility of constructing a nationally distributed energy network
that would include smart grid features. This network could be
established by the government with installation of most of the
public buildings into it. Private building owners could later join the
network once it is up and running. Another closely related issue for
future studies has to do with the interface between procurement,
project delivery systems and distributed renewable energy. The
PPP-procurement method [49], a delivery method based on part-
nership, could be well suited to labour-intensive renewable energy
production methods. To date, snow storage systems have received
little attention in scientific forums, despite the fact that the tech-
nology works well. Snow is a big asset in northern countries and
could be utilised for cooling. Also, snow handling and cooling might
become larger issue as cities grow and extreme weather conditions
supposedly become more frequent due to climate change.
Acknowledgements
All of the financial parties involved in the KURKE project are
gratefully acknowledged for their support: the Finnish Funding
Agency for Technology and Innovation, Helen, Fortum, YIT, Turku
Energia, Vantaan Energia, Scanpool, SULPU and the cities of Espoo,
Jyväskylä, Vantaa, Kotka and Kerava.
References
[1] Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the Com-
mission to the European Council and the European Parliament e an energy
policy for Europe {SEC (2007) 12} 2007. p. 5.
[2] Portal of European Union. Strategy on climate change: the way ahead for 2020
and beyond. <http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/tackling_
climate_change/l28188_en.htm>; 2007 [accessed August 2011].
[3] Statistics Finland. Katsauksia 2011/1. Suomen kasvihuonekaasupäästöt 1990e
2009 2011. p. 15.
[4] Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2010/31/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council; 2010. p. 21.
 M. Kantola, A. Saari / Renewable Energy 57 (2013) 539e545
[5] Statistics Finland. Rakennuskanta 2010. <http://www.stat.fi/til/rakke/2010/
rakke_2010_2011-05-26_kat_002_fi.html>; 2011 [accessed August 2011].
[6] Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities. Kuntien rakennuskanta
2005 2006. p. 38.
[7] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and
the Committee of the Regions e Energy efficiency plan 2011 2011. p. 4.
[8] Energy prices. Statistics Finland. <http://pxweb2.stat.fi/database/statfin/ene/
ehi/ehi_fi.asp>; 2011 [accessed August 2011].
[9] Memo on the renewable energy and climate change package. Portal of European
Union. p. 3, <http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference¼MEMO/
08/33&format¼HTML&aged¼1&language¼EN&guiLanguage¼en>; 2011
[accessed August 2011].
[10] Valkila N, Saari A. Urgent need for new approach to energy policy: the case of
Finland. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 2010;14:2068e76.
[11] Winkler H, Hughes A, Haw M. Technology learning for renewable energy:
implication for South-Africa’s long-term mitigation scenarios. Energ Policy
2009;37:4987e96.
[12] Hemgren P, Wannfors H. Pientalon käsikirja 2008. p. 316.
[13] Forestry Center. Maatilan hakelämmitysopas 2008. p. 10.
[14] Skogsberg K. Seasonal snow storage for space and process cooling. Doctoral
thesis. Luleå University of Technology; 2005. p. 49.
[15] General Electric Energy. <http://www.ge-energy.com/products_and_services/
products/gas_engines_power_generation/ge_jenbacher_type_6_gas_engines.
jsp>; 2011 [accessed August 2011].
[16] Finnish State Treasury. Vuoden 2011 laskelmissa käytettäväksi tarkoitettu
korkokustannus 2011.
[17] Holopainen R, Hekkanen M, Hemmilä K, Norvasuo M. Suomalaisten rakennusten
energiakorjausmenetelmät ja säästöpotentiaalit. VTT; 2007. publication 2377.
[18] Zorg Biogas. <http://zorg-biogas.com/biogas-plants/price-list>; 2011 [accessed
June 2011].
[19] MAC Aggregate. <http://www.mac-energy.de/index.php?id¼1>; 2012 [accessed
September 2012].
[20] Riku Maidell. AirIx cost calculation 2012.
[21] Vapo. <http://www.vapo.fi/>; 2011 [accessed April 2011].
[22] Agrimarket. <http://www.agrimarket.fi>; 2011 [accessed April 2011].
[23] Naps Systems. <http://www.napssystems.com>; 2011 [accessed April 2011].
[24] Carrier. <http://www.carrier.com/carrier/en/fi/>; 2012 [accessed September
2012].
[25] Euroheat and Power. Ecoheatcool e guidelines for assessing the efficiency of
district heating and district cooling systems 2006.
[26] Finnish Energy Industries. http://www.energia.fi/; 2011 [accessed March
2011].
[27] Interview with Janne Vartiainen. Development director at Helsingin Energia;
2011.
[28] Erat B, Erkkilä V, Nyman C, Peippo K, Peltola S, Suokivi H. Aurinko-opas e
aurinkoenergiaa rakennuksiin 2001. p. 175.
[29] Statistics Finland. Fuel rating. http://www.tilastokeskus.fi/tup/khkinv/
khkaasut_polttoaineluokitus.html; 2011 [accessed February 2011]. p. 293e6.
545
[30] Palosuo T. Puuperäisen energian käytön päästö- ja elinkaarianalyysit. Tech-
nical Research Center of Finland, European Forest Institute. <http://www.
mm.helsinki.fi/mmtek/opiskelu%20/kurssit/y92/Taru_Palosuo_puuketjut_
elinkaarianalyysi_230109.pdf>; 2011 [accessed February 2011].
[31] Kuittinen V, Huttunen MJ, Leinonen S. Finnish biogas register number 13.
University of Eastern Finland, Department of Biology; 2010. p. 11e3.
[32] Väisänen P, Salmenoja J. Biokaasun muodostuminen ja sen hallittu käsittely
kaatopaikoilla. p. 5.
[33] Fuller SK, Petersen SR. Handbook 135, life cycle costing manual for the Federal
Energy Management Program. The NIST; 1996.
[34] General Electric Energy. <http://www.gepower.com/home/index.htm>; 2011
[accessed June 2011].
[35] Alpo Huhta. Hernesaaren lumenkaatopaikan pitäminen auki maksaa tonnin tun-
nissa. Helsingin Sanomat. Oma kaupunki e pääkaupunkiseutu. <http://
omakaupunki.hs.fi/paakaupunkiseutu/uutiset/hernesaaren_lumenkaatopaikan_
auki_pitaminen_maksaa_tonnin/> [accessed September 2012].
[36] Kurnitski J, Saari A, Kalamees T, Vuolle M, Niemelä J, Tark T. Cost optimal
nearly zero (nZEB) energy performance calculations for residential buildings
with REHVA definition for nZEB national implementation. J Energ Build
2011;43:3279e88.
[37] Saari A, Kalamees T, Jokisalo J, Michelsson R, Alanne K, Kurnitski J. Financial
viability of energy-efficiency measures in a new detached house design in
Finland. J Appl Energ 2012;92:76e82.
[38] Pietikäinen P. Kunta X:n eri lämmityslaitosten kannattavuus vertailu. Bioenergia
- energiainvestoinnit ja yritystalous. North Karelia University of Applied
Sciences. <http://elearn.ncp.fi/materiaali/kainulainens/bioenergiamateriaali04/
yritystalous/pdf_materiaali/raportti_ja_laskelmat.pdf> [accessed November
2011].
[39] Hunt T. The true cost of renewable energy. <http://www.renewableenergyworld.
com/rea/news/article/2010/12/the-true-cost-of-renewable-energy>; 2010
[accessed November 2011].
[40] Ho MW, Cherry B, Burcher S, Saunders B. Green energies 100 % renewables by
2050 2011.
[41] Hearps P, McConnell D. Renewable energy technology cost review. Melbourne
Energy Institute; 2011. Technical Paper Series.
[42] Hordeski MF. Megatrends for energy efficiency and renewable energy 2011.
[43] Eurostat. <http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab¼table&init¼1&
language¼en&pcode¼ten00114&plugin¼1>; 2011 [accessed February 2011].
[44] Solpros. Aurinkoenergia Suomen olosuhteissa ja sen potentiaali ilmas-
tonmuutoksen torjunnassa 2001. p. 9.
[45] Alanne K, Saari A. Sustainable small scale CHP technologies for buildings: the
basis of multi perspective decision making. J Renew Sustain Energ Rev
2004;8:401e31.
[46] Government report. Long-term climate and energy strategy. Government
report to Parliament 6 November; 2008.
[47] Jyri Häkämies. Finnish parliament session 27.9.2012.
[48] Alanne K, Saari A. Distributed energy generation and sustainable develop-
ment. J Renew Sustain Energ Rev 2006;10:539e58.
[49] Kenig ME. Project delivery systems for construction. 3rd ed. 2011.